Date of death: Not long before 929.Flodoard refers to her as recently deceased
in the first entry of his annals for 929 ["Heribertus et
Hugo comites contra Bosonem, Rodulfi regis fratrem, profiscuntur,
propter quisdam Rothildis alodes nuper defunctae, quos a Bosone
pervasos repetebat Hugo, gener ipsius Rothildis."
Flodoard, Annales, s.a. 929, 44]. Some sources [e.g.,
the original version of this page; Auguste Longnon, in the
preface to Obit. Sens, 1 (pt. 1): xx-xxi; Werner (1967), 428]
have erroneously assigned her a death date of 22 March based on
several necrologies, but those entries refer to another Rothilde,
daughter of Charlemagne, and not to the present Rothilde. [This error was
pointed out by Peter Stewart.]Place of death: Unknown.

Father:Charles the Bald, d. 877, king of the Western Franks, Emperor.As indicated above, Rothilde is called an amita
of Charles the Simple by Flodoard. Since the name Rothilde is
known among the Carolingians, the usual interpretation of the
word amita as "paternal aunt" is probably
correct.

Mother: Richilde, living 910, daughter of count Bivin.Her mother is not explicitly identified, but chronology
would seem to make her more likely as a daughter of Richilde.
[see Werner (1967), 422-8 (Excurs I)]

Spouse:Roger, d.
before 31 October 900, count of Maine.For the documentation of Rothilde's son
Hugues as a son of count Roger of Maine, see the page of Hugues I.

NN, m. Hugues le Grand,
duke of France.As indicated above, Flodoard refers to
Rothilde as socrus of Hugues, and to Hugues as gener
of Rothilde.

Commentary

Falsely attributed
husband: Hugues,
count of Bourges.Conjectured
daughter (unproven): Richilde, m. Thibaud,
viscount of Tours (parents of Thibaud
le Tricheur, count of Blois).Based on the fact that Thibaud le Tricheur,
count of Blois, had a mother named Richilde and a brother named
Richard, Depoin assumed that Richilde was of the same family as
Charles the Bald's second wife, the empress Richilde, who had a
brother named Richard [Depoin (1908), 587-592]. He conjectured
that the younger Richilde was a granddaughter of the empress
Richilde, and that the intervening generation was the present
Rothilde. At that time, Depoin was unaware that the Hugues of the
900 document was a count of Maine, son of Roger, and he
conjectured that Hugues was son of another Hugues, count of
Bourges. Although this conjectured husband of Rothilde can now be
dismissed, it does not affect the onomastic argument which would
make the younger Richilde a possible relative of the empress
Richilde, so it remains possible (but still unproven) that the
younger Richilde was a daughter of Roger and Rothilde. This
connection has recently been accepted by Keats-Rohan [Keats-Rohan
(1997), 194 (with a vague citation to Depoin); Keats-Rohan
(2000), 65].